When looking for insights, the old hands are so often the best. Norman Podhoretz – the great editor of Commentary magazine from 1960-1995, when the torch was passed to his son John – weighed in at the Wall Street Journal over the weekend with an op-ed headlined, “What Happened to Obama? Absolutely Nothing.”

No white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

And so it came about that a faithful scion of the political culture of the ’60s left is now sitting in the White House and doing everything in his power to effect the fundamental transformation of America to which that culture was dedicated and to which he has pledged his own personal allegiance.

I disagree with those of my fellow conservatives who maintain that Mr. Obama is indifferent to “the best interests of the United States” (Thomas Sowell) and is “purposely” out to harm America (Rush Limbaugh). In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country.

But I emphatically agree with Messrs. Limbaugh and Sowell about this president’s attitude toward America as it exists and as the Founding Fathers intended it. That is why my own answer to the question, “What Happened to Obama?” is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind.

A fearless and grounded description, without fake psychologizing or feverish speculation or, indeed, the sort of clenched anger that can cause you to miss what’s right in front of your face. This is how you get to be one of the Big Boys. Read the whole thing here. It’s worth it.

Click here to view the 3 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

3 Comments, 1 Threads

1.
Lawrence in New York

Mr. Klavan, I beg you, please wake up.

I disagree with those of my fellow conservatives who maintain that Mr. Obama is indifferent to “the best interests of the United States” (Thomas Sowell) and is “purposely” out to harm America (Rush Limbaugh).

“In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country.”

“And so it came about that a faithful scion of the political culture of the ’60s left is now sitting in the White House ”

Starting at the bottom – we have this man in the White House becuase lots of people, Podhoretz included, utterly misunderstand the radical, and idealist impulse behind him. And, Mr Podhoretz, why do we have this agenda from the Executive Branch and why do we have most of his administration?

Re Obama only wanting to make America a better place – this belief is born of the same idealism that is propelling the left itself in its own right.

Maybe it is just that Podhoretz is old school thinking – so he doesn’t see the growth of the power of the left in mandated low gravity toilets.

But I see Mr Podhoretz as part of a left liberal establishment, albeit he does occupy the right side of that group. Or former leftist side of that group.

With all due respect, Lawrence, I don’t think you can prove what the man’s intentions are any more than anyone else can. Considering the fact that you cite no supporting facts or reasoning for your belief, it sounds very emotional; and so will be the retort against it.

I assume you’d like to see him voted out of office next year, but I believe commentary like yours is counterproductive to that end. People who disagree with your opinion will find it easy (like I did) to see it as an emotional, prejudicial opinion. Most people (and, especially, most liberals, if you agree with Ann Coulter) will react emotionally, instead of objectively, to your statements. That will build sympathy for him, making the person likely to discount other opinions that agree with yours.

We need to be above that. We need to make the best case we can for him being the wrong person for the job. No one can call you a racist, if you simply state facts. Liberals won’t froth with vitriol before you can make your point, if you give the man some benefit of the doubt. He may have the best or worst of intentions, but it really doesn’t matter which, because the results speak for themselves.